I can't think of any guns that match the description that he gives, having the short range and massive weight. The largest I personally know of being used there was the Big Bertha, but its a third of the weight and size of what Don Carlin describes. Not to mention the effects on the firer. What would these have been?

Could you draw a parallel between todays reconsidering of ending the edict of celibacy, to the de-constituting of celibacy during the reformative movement(when you did not consider marriage as sin)?

In 1910, the Liberal party passed the most progressive budget up to that point in UK history. Both the prime ministers during WW1 were Liberals. So, why did the liberals slowly collapse during the 1920's and 30's, leaving Labour as the dominant opposition from 1945 onwards?

If not, was it because they were so far apart and couldn't really support each other?

Also what was Korean and Japanese cuisine like before the they picked up chopsticks?

On the one hand, the Mongol seemed to routinely break their promises and lie such as when they would promise safety to a city/ruler if they surrendered and then kill everyone when they did. On the other hand, they seemed to reserve their greatest anger towards people/nations who made promises to the Mongols and then didn't follow through such as Ghengis' reaction to the Sung Chinese not sending help against the Middle East or Hulagu's writings to the ruler of Baghdad before its fall. Was it an "all is fair in war" type of thing? Or a "one set of rules for us and another for everyone else" thing? Or something else altogether?

I have recently been search for some good documentaries to learn a bit more about the Hapsburg dynasty and the empire, but have been un able to find any. Does anyone know any good places to go to find any?

How do these 4 differ from each other? Codex, Novallae, Instituitones and Digesta

Or is that more of a Chinese nationalist view? If so, when could one say that China experienced a 'fall of Rome' moment? How old is modern Chinese civilization?

One thing that Jersey City and Brooklyn have in common is that they are both nextdoor neighbors with Manhattan. However, unlike Brooklyn, Jersey City sits right on the Hudson River, which as I understand it, made it a more favorable trading location with merchants from the interior of the country. Meanwhile Brooklyn sits on the East River which hasn't really been as economically important.

But Jersey City also shares many important pieces of transportation infrastructure with Manhattan connected New York to the rest of the country. The PATH Tubes, and the Holland Tunnel directly connected Jersey City to the Financial District in Lower Manhattan and Midtown, and they also help to connect Manhattan with New Jersey, and there for the rest of the continent.

However despite these benefits, Jersey City has always had a smaller population and has never really been as influential as Brooklyn has. Even before Brooklyn unified with New York, it was the fourth largest city in the United States while Jersey City was around 16th or 17th place.

Why didn't Jersey City experience nearly as much growth and development as Brooklyn did prior to its consolidation into New York City?

I get the impression that England sat behind the major powers of Europe such as Spain, France and Austria and on par with the Netherlands. Yet because of a strong trading position and the relative security afforded by the channel England was able to punch above its weight. Yet I find it very difficult to distinguish what came after with the industrial revolution and the empire and to retrospectively make England seem bigger than it actually was. Further, was Elizabeth's position stronger than say that of her father Henry VIII or her successors James I and Charles I?

I have been reading the Aeneid and understand that it is based upon the homeric epics; is the poem influenced by other ancient literature as well?

I know this might break the 20 year rule, but there are some aspects that don't break the rule. Basically if this breaks the rule I understand. Basically the US was good at rebuilding Western Europe after WW2, they rebuild Japan after WW2, rebuilt South Korea after the Korean War, (debatably) rebuilt South Vietnam after the Vietnam War, but after that we just sucked at rebuilding and got more hate than results in rebuilding the nations we were trying to help. Is there a reason for this?

Hello all, this is my first post here. I'm happy to have found this subreddit, and I have some questions about the Croatia-RSK borders.

I've read a lot of literature on the Yugoslav Wars, so I'm very familiar with the layout of the borders and how they looked. My questions are rather related to the practical elements of crossing the RSK-Croatian border.

1. Was the UN present at all Republika Srpska Krajina-Croatia border crossings, or just the main ones?
2. Did Croatia conduct passport / Customs controls, or just army-led identity checks on the RSK border? In addition, did they ever establish anything resembling a real border there?
3. When did Slovenia and Croatia establish border crossings between themselves? Was it immediately after independence, or did they have freedom of movement for a while?
4. Did any border controls exist between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Herceg-Bosna? I'm thinking particularly about the Neum-Klek/Zaton Doli crossing points.

Thank you for any help that you can provide!

Outside of Europe and England, what was going on in the rest of the world like (Africa, India, China, Japan etc) during the post collapse of Rome and the time leading to the renaissance?

I originally posted this in ELI5 but got no answers. Maybe I'll have better luck here! Many thanks. I know it's kind of basic.